America’s GM Grain Surpluses: Sowing the Seeds of Famine in Ethiopia
By <
http://www.globalresearch.ca/author/michel-chossudovsky> Prof Michel
Chossudovsky
Global Research, May 26, 2013
<
http://globalresearch.ca/articles/CHO109B.html> The Ecologist and Global
Research 1 September 2000
The “economic therapy” imposed under IMF-World Bank jurisdiction is in large
part responsible for triggering famine and social devastation in Ethiopia
and the rest of sub-Saharan Africa, wreaking the peasant economy and
impoverishing millions of people.
With the complicity of branches of the US government, it has also opened the
door for the appropriation of traditional seeds and landraces by US biotech
corporations, which behind the scenes have been peddling the adoption of
their own genetically modified seeds under the disguise of emergency aid and
famine relief.
Moreover, under WTO rules, the agri-biotech conglomerates can manipulate
market forces to their advantage as well as exact royalties from farmers.
The WTO provides legitimacy to the food giants to dismantle State programmes
including emergency grain stocks, seed banks, extension services and
agricultural credit, etc.), plunder peasant economies and trigger the
outbreak of periodic famines.
Crisis in the Horn
More than 8 million people in Ethiopia – representing 15% of the country’s
population – had been locked into “famine zones”. Urban wages have collapsed
and unemployed seasonal farm workers and landless peasants have been driven
into abysmal poverty. The international relief agencies concur without
further examination that climatic factors are the sole and inevitable cause
of crop failure and the ensuing humanitarian disaster. What the media
tabloids fails to disclose is that – despite the drought and the border war
with Eritrea – several million people in the most prosperous agricultural
regions have also been driven into starvation. Their predicament is not the
consequence of grain shortages but of “free markets” and “bitter economic
medicine” imposed under the IMF-World Bank sponsored Structural Adjustment
Programme (SAP).
Ethiopia produces more than 90% of its consumption needs. Yet at the height
of the crisis, the nationwide food deficit for 2000 was estimated by the
Food and Agriculture Organization (FAO) at 764,000 metric tons of grain
representing a shortfall of 13 kilos per person per annum.1 In Amhara, grain
production (1999-2000) was twenty percent in excess of consumption needs.
Yet 2.8 million people in Amhara (representing 17% of the region’s
population) became locked into famine zones and are “at risk” according to
the FAO. 2 Whereas Amhara’s grain surpluses were in excess of 500,000 tons
(1999-2000), its “relief food needs” had been tagged by the international
community at close to 300,000 tons.3 A similar pattern prevailed in Oromiya,
the country’s most populated state where 1.6 million people were classified
“at risk”, despite the availability of more than 600,000 metric tons of
surplus grain.4 In both these regions, which include more than 25% of the
country’s population, scarcity of food was clearly not the cause of hunger,
poverty and social destitution. Yet no explanations are given by the panoply
of international relief agencies and agricultural research institutes.
The Promise of the “Free Market”
In Ethiopia, a transitional government came into power in 1991 in the wake
of a protracted and destructive civil war. After the pro-Soviet Dergue
regime of Colonel Mengistu Haile Mariam was unseated, a multi-donor financed
Emergency Recovery and Reconstruction Project (ERRP) was hastily put in
place to deal with an external debt of close to 9 billion dollars that had
accumulated during the Mengistu government. Ethiopia’s outstanding debts
with the Paris Club of official creditors were rescheduled in exchange for
far-reaching macro-economic reforms. Upheld by US foreign policy, the usual
doses of bitter IMF economic medicine were prescribed. Caught in the
straightjacket of debt and structural adjustment, the new Transitional
Government of Ethiopia (TGE), led by the Ethiopian People’s Revolutionary
Democratic Front (EPRDF) – largely formed from the Tigrean People’s
Liberation Front (PLF) – had committed itself to far-reaching “free market
reforms”, despite its leaders’ Marxist leanings. Washington soon tagged
Ethiopia alongside Uganda as Africa’s post Cold War free market showpiece.
While social budgets were slashed under the structural adjustment programme
(SAP), military expenditure – in part financed by the gush of fresh
development loans – quadrupled since 1989.5 With Washington supporting both
sides in the Eritrea-Ethiopia border war, US arms sales spiralled. The
bounty was being shared between the arms manufacturers and the agribusiness
conglomerates. In the post-Cold War era, the latter positioned themselves in
the lucrative procurement of emergency aid to war-torn countries. With
mounting military spending financed on borrowed money, almost half of
Ethiopia’s export revenues was earmarked to meet debt-servicing obligations.
A Policy Framework Paper (PFP) stipulating the precise changes to be carried
out in Ethiopia had been carefully drafted in Washington by IMF and World
Bank officials on behalf of the transitional government, and was forwarded
to Addis Ababa for the signature of the Minister of Finance. The enforcement
of severe austerity measures virtually foreclosed the possibility of a
meaningful post-war reconstruction and the rebuilding of the country’s
shattered infrastructure. The creditors demanded trade liberalization and
the full-scale privatization of public utilities, financial institutions,
State farms and factories. Civil servants including teachers and health
workers were fired, wages were frozen and the labor laws were rescinded to
enable State enterprises “to shed their surplus workers”. Meanwhile,
corruption became rampant. State assets were auctioned off to foreign
capital at bargain prices and Price Waterhouse Cooper was entrusted with the
task of coordinating the sale of State property.
In turn, the reforms had led to the fracture of the federal fiscal system.
Budget transfers to the State governments were slashed leaving the regions
to their own devices. Supported by several donors, “regionalization” was
heralded as a “devolution of powers from the federal to the regional
governments”. The Bretton Woods institutions knew exactly what they were
doing. In the words of the IMF, “[the regions] capacity to deliver effective
and efficient development interventions varies widely, as does their
capacity for revenue collection”. 6
Wrecking the Peasant Economy
Patterned on the reforms adopted in Kenya in 1991 (see Box 9.1 ),
agricultural markets were wilfully manipulated on behalf of the agribusiness
conglomerates. The World Bank demanded the rapid removal of price controls
and all subsidies to farmers. Transportation and freight prices were
deregulated serving to boost food prices in remote areas affected by
drought. In turn, the markets for farm inputs including fertiliser and seeds
were handed over to private traders including Pioneer Hi-Bred International
which entered into a lucrative partnership with Ethiopia Seed Enterprise
(ESE), the government’s seed monopoly.7
At the outset of the reforms in 1992, USAID under its Title III program
“donated” large quantities of US fertilizer “in exchange for free market
reforms”:
[V]arious agricultural commodities [will be provided] in exchange for
reforms of grain marketing… and [the] elimination of food subsidies…The
reform agenda focuses on liberalization and privatization in the fertilizer
and transport sectors in return for financing fertilizer and truck imports….
These program initiatives have given us [an] “entrée” …in defining major
[policy] issues… 8
While the stocks of donated US fertiliser were rapidly exhausted; the
imported chemicals contributed to displacing local fertiliser producers. The
same companies involved in the fertiliser import business were also in
control of the domestic wholesale distribution of fertiliser using local
level merchants as intermediaries.
Increased output was recorded in commercial farms and in irrigated areas
(where fertilizer and high yielding seeds had been applied). The overall
tendency, however, was towards greater economic and social polarisation in
the countryside, marked by significantly lower yields in less productive
marginal lands occupied by the poor peasantry. Even in areas where output
had increased, farmers were caught in the clutch of the seed and fertilizer
merchants.
In 1997, the Atlanta based Carter Center – which was actively promoting the
use of biotechnology tools in maize breeding – proudly announced that
“Ethiopia [had] become a food exporter for the first time”.9 Yet in a cruel
irony, the donors ordered the dismantling of the emergency grain reserves
(set up in the wake of the 1984-85 famine) and the authorities acquiesced.
Instead of replenishing the country’s emergency food stocks, grain was
exported to meet Ethiopia’s debt servicing obligations. Close to one million
tons of the 1996 harvest was exported, an amount which would have been amply
sufficient (according to FAO figures) to meet the 1999-2000 emergency. In
fact the same food staple which had been exported (namely maize) was
re-imported barely a few months later. The world market had confiscated
Ethiopia’s grain reserves.
In return, US surpluses of genetically engineered maize (banned by the
European Union) were being dumped on the horn of Africa in the form of
emergency aid. The US had found a convenient mechanism for “laundering its
stocks of dirty grain”. The agribusiness conglomerates not only cornered
Ethiopia’s commodity exports, they were also involved in the procurement of
emergency shipments of grain back into Ethiopia. During the 1998-2000
famine, lucrative maize contracts were awarded to giant grain merchants such
as Archer Daniels Midland (ADM) and Cargill Inc. 10
Laundering America’s GM Grain Surpluses
US grain surpluses peddled in war-torn countries also served to weaken the
agricultural system. Some 500,000 tons of maize and maize products were
“donated” in 1999-2000 by USAID to relief agencies including the World Food
Programme (WFP) which in turn collaborates closely with the US Department of
Agriculture. At least 30% of these shipments (procured under contract with
US agribusiness firms) were surplus genetically modified grain stocks. 11
Boosted by the border war with Eritrea and the plight of thousands of
refugees, the influx of contaminated food aid had contributed to the
pollution of Ethiopia’s genetic pool of indigenous seeds and landraces. In a
cruel irony, the food giants were at the same time gaining control – through
the procurement of contaminated food aid – over Ethiopia’s seed banks.
According to South Africa’s Biowatch: “Africa is treated as the dustbin of
the world…To donate untested food and seed to Africa is not an act of
kindness but an attempt to lure Africa into further dependence on foreign
aid.” 12
Moreover, part of the “food aid” had been channelled under the “food for
work” program which served to further discourage domestic production in
favour of grain imports. Under this scheme, impoverished and landless
farmers were contracted to work on rural infrastructural programmes in
exchange for “donated” US corn.
Meanwhile, the cash earnings of coffee smallholders plummeted. Whereas
Pioneer Hi-Bred positioned itself in seed distribution and marketing,
Cargill Inc established itself in the markets for grain and coffee through
its subsidiary Ethiopian Commodities.12 For the more than 700,000
smallholders with less than 2 hectares that produce between 90 and 95% of
the country’s coffee output, the deregulation of agricultural credit
combined with low farmgate prices of coffee had triggered increased
indebtedness and landlessness, particularly in East Gojam (Ethiopia’s
breadbasket).
Biodiversity up for Sale
The country’s extensive reserves of traditional seed varieties (barley,
teff, chick peas, sorghum, etc) were being appropriated, genetically
manipulated and patented by the agribusiness conglomerates: “Instead of
compensation and respect, Ethiopians today are …getting bills from foreign
companies that have “patented” native species and now demand payment for
their use.”13 The foundations of a “competitive seed industry” were laid
under IMF and World Bank auspices.14 The Ethiopian Seed Enterprise (ESE),
the government’s seed monopoly joined hands with Pioneer Hi-Bred in the
distribution of hi-bred and genetically modified (GM) seeds (together with
hybrid resistant herbicide) to smallholders. In turn, the marketing of seeds
had been transferred to a network of private contractors and “seed
enterprises” with financial support and technical assistance from the World
Bank. The “informal” farmer-to-farmer seed exchange was slated to be
converted under the World Bank programme into a “formal” market oriented
system of “private seed producer-sellers.” 15
In turn, the Ethiopian Agricultural Research Institute (EARI) was
collaborating with the International Maize and Wheat Improvement Center
(CIMMYT) in the development of new hybrids between Mexican and Ethiopian
maize varieties.16 Initially established in the 1940s by Pioneer Hi-Bred
International with support from the Ford and Rockefeller foundations, CIMMYT
developed a cosy relationship with US agribusiness. Together with the UK
based Norman Borlaug Institute, CIMMYT constitutes a research arm as well as
a mouthpiece of the seed conglomerates. According to the Rural Advancement
Foundation (RAFI) “US farmers already earn $150 million annually by growing
varieties of barley developed from Ethiopian strains. Yet nobody in Ethiopia
is sending them a bill.” 17
Impacts of Famine
The 1984-85 famine had seriously threatened Ethiopia’s reserves of landraces
of traditional seeds. In response to the famine, the Dergue government
through its Plant Genetic Resource Centre –in collaboration with Seeds of
Survival (SoS)– had implemented a programme to preserve Ethiopia’s
biodiversity.18 This programme – which was continued under the transitional
government – skilfully “linked on-farm conservation and crop improvement by
rural communities with government support services”. 19 An extensive network
of in-farm sites and conservation plots was established involving some
30,000 farmers. In 1998, coinciding chronologically with the onslaught of
the 1998-2000 famine, the government clamped down on seeds of Survival (SoS)
and ordered the programme to be closed down. 20
The hidden agenda was to eventually displace the traditional varieties and
landraces reproduced in village-level nurseries. The latter were supplying
more than 90 percent of the peasantry through a system of farmer-to-farmer
exchange. Without fail, the 1998-2000 famine led to a further depletion of
local level seed banks: “The reserves of grains [the farmer] normally stores
to see him through difficult times are empty. Like 30,000 other households
in the [Galga] area, his family have also eaten their stocks of seeds for
the next harvest.”21 And a similar process was unfolding in the production
of coffee where the genetic base of the arabica beans was threatened as a
result of the collapse of farmgate prices and the impoverishment of
small-holders.
In other words, the famine – itself in large part a product of the economic
reforms imposed to the advantage of large corporations by the IMF, World
Bank and the US Government – served to undermine Ethiopia’s genetic
diversity to the benefit of the biotech companies. With the weakening of the
system of traditional exchange, village level seed banks were being
replenished with commercial hi-bred and genetically modified seeds. In turn,
the distribution of seeds to impoverished farmers had been integrated with
the “food aid” programmes. WPF and USAID relief packages often include
“donations” of seeds and fertiliser, thereby favouring the inroad of the
agribusiness-biotech companies into Ethiopia’s agricultural heartland. The
emergency programs are not the “solution” but the “cause” of famine. By
deliberately creating a dependency on GM seeds, they had set the stage for
the outbreak of future famines.
This destructive pattern – invariably resulting in famine – is replicated
throughout Sub-Saharan Africa. From the onslaught of the debt crisis of the
early 1980s, the IMF-World Bank had set the stage for the demise of the
peasant economy across the region with devastating results. Now, in
Ethiopia, fifteen years after the last famine left nearly one million dead,
hunger is once again stalking the land. This time, as eight million people
face the risk of starvation, we know that it isn’t just the weather that is
to blame.
Notes
1. Food and Agriculture Organization (FAO), Special Report: FAO/WFP Crop
Assessment Mission to Ethiopia, Rome, January 2000.
2. Ibid
3. Ibid
4. Ibid
5. Philip Sherwell and Paul Harris, “Guns before Grain as Ethiopia
Starves, Sunday Telegraph, London, April 16, 2000.
6. IMF, Ethiopia, Recent Economic Developments, Washington, 1999.
7. Pioneer Hi-Bred International, General GMO Facts,
http://www.pioneer.com/usa/biotech/value_of_products/product_value.htm#.
8. United States agency for International Development (USAID), “Mission to
Ethiopia, Concept Paper: Back to The Future”, Washington, June 1993
9. Carter Center, Press release, Atlanta, Georgia, January 31, 1997.
10. Declan Walsh, America Find Ready Market for GM Food, The
Independent, London, March 30, 2000, p. 18).
11. Ibid.
12. Maja Wallegreen, “The World’s Oldest Coffee Industry In
Transition”, Tea & Coffee Trade Journal, November 1, 1999.
13. Laeke Mariam Demissie, A vast historical contribution
counts for little; West reaps Ethiopia’s genetic harvest, World Times,
October, 1998).
14. World Bank, Ethiopia-Seed Systems Development Project,
Project ID ETPA752, 6 June 1995.
15. Ibid
16. See CIMMYT Research Plan and Budget 2000-2002
http://www.cimmyt.mx/about/People-mtp2002.htm#).
17. Laeke Mariam Demissie, op. cit
18. “When local farmers know best”, The Economist, 16 May
1998)
19. Ibid
20. Laeke Mariam Demissie, op. cit.
21. Rageh Omaar, “Hunger stalks Ethiopia’s dry land”, BBC,
London, 6 January, 2000.
22. An earlier version of this article was published in The
Ecologist, September 2000.
This article, which describes how genetically modified seeds granted as
“food aid” was instrumental in triggering famine. It was first published in
The Ecologist in September 2000. It was one the first articles published on
Global Research in September 2001. It was also published as a chapter in
the second edition of Michel Chossudovsky’s “
<
http://www.globalresearch.ca/store> Globalization of Poverty and the New
World Order
Received on Sun May 26 2013 - 22:24:16 EDT
